Talk:Suicide of Bill Sparkman

Uncivilised

What sort of country is it where you can be murdered for being a census enumerator? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In the future I have the benefit of hindsight and understand Sparkman committed suicide and wasn't murdered. Many concluded it was murder, based on damning media reports, and speculated about the motive.

I believe this event reveals the influence of both political extremes where conspiracy theories tried to incite the base against some offensive movement. Some argued that domineering government was abusing its power. Others argued that radical conservatives were violently inflamed. If only we had reacted more prudently. Will we learn from this in the future? Maybe not. ——Rich jj (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Template

The article page has had a deletion template added to it. I disagree with the grounds of the template "grisly but not notable". The article is no more grisly that the plot synopsis of any number of horror fiction and film articles on Wikipedia. It documents an event and a national news item. The event also involves a possible change in public view of the Federal Government in the US (there are not very many murders that are Federal Government affiliation motivated. It is my recommendation that the template be removed and further work take place on this article. I will add more when I have the time. Tigey (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace

The article currently displays Sparkman's birthplace as London, Kentucky, citing the Huffington Post which called him "the London, Kentucky man". It seems to me this is only identifying him as a resident of London, Kentucky, rather than stating where he was born. He moved to London in 1993 [1] to take a job with the Boy Scouts of America,[2] when he was about 35. In light of this, it seems more likely Sparkman had no roots in London, Kentucky.

During high school he lived in Florida,[3] he wrote for a Mulberry, Florida newspaper,[4] and his mother lives in Inverness, Florida.[5] Although this does not establish his birthplace, he seems his background is in Florida, which may help us eventually find a source that identifies his actual birthplace. ——Rich jj (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As an update, I've found two articles that provide more information from Florida

• The Ledger, a newspaper in Mulberry, FL, printed an article on Bill Sparkman calling him a "Mulberry Native".[6] It also said he moved to Atlanta before ending up in Kentucky.
• Sparkman's father's 1992 obituary in The Ledger says Sparkman Sr. lived in Mulberry from birth until 1985, and then in Lakeland until his death.[7]

I'm sure the 1992 obituary is for Bill Sparkman's father because:

• Bill Sparkman is named William E. Sparkman Jr. and this obituary is for William Edwin Sparkman.
• The obituary states one son is "William E. Sparkman Jr., Irving, Texas".
• The obituary is for a Mulberry man.
• The first article says Sparkman Sr. was a VP at Badcock, which is the same as the obituary.
• The first article says Sparkman Sr. died from cancer in the 1990s. The obituary says he died at age 62 (not advanced age) in 1992.
• The first article says Sparkman Sr. had 3 sons: Sparkman Jr, Tom (an Atlanta dentist), and Jon. The obituary lists the the children as William E. Sparkman Jr., Dr. Thomas K. Sparkman (Atlanta), and Jonathan C. Sparkman.

The obituary says the wife was Lynda, not Sparkman Jr's mother (Henrie). But it also lists 2 step-children and county records show a divorce for a William Edwin Sparkman between 1927 and 2001.[8] Perhaps a divorce is why Sparkman Sr. moved to Lakeland.

This was rambling but it leads to these conclusions:

1. Bill Sparkman was probably born in or around Mulberry, Florida because his father lived there at the time and Bill grew up there.
2. Bill Sparkman's parents seem to have divorced, perhaps around 1985.
3. Bill Sparkman certainly grew up in Mulberry, FL and later lived in Atlanta, GA and Irving, TX before London, KY.
4. Bill Sparkman didn't move to London, KY on condition of new employment by the BSA, since he was already working with them since living in Mulberry.

——Rich jj (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Change it. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 04:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC) (and yes, I did consciously use just a 3-word response :P )

Deletion of extreme blogger speculations

In the "Media reaction" section, I wrote a summary of conservative blogger Dan Riehl's speculation that vigilantes may have murdered Bill Sparkman for being a pedophile. That paragraph was just deleted from this article with the comment: "Delete extreme WP:BLP violation sourced only to a blog". Allow me to explain my rational and make the case for keeping this coverage:

1. The article presented Riehl's writings as his own views, not as source material for solving this mysterious death or providing any answers to the nature of Sparkman's death.
2. The article presented Riehl's post in the context of the blogosphere reaction. Bill Sparkman is notable largely for the political speculation it has sparked, such as the profuse activity from the political blogosphere, which helped establish the notability of this event.
3. Riehl's posting was noted by other political coverage of this event. While I'm sure many didn't want to spotlight Riehl's take on this issue, there were still notable blogs and news sources that offered a reaction to his post:
   here from The Atlantic Wire,
   here from Media Matters for America,
   here from Daily Radar,
   here from Mahablog,
   here from Daily Kos,
   here from pandagon,
   here from at-Largely,
   here from The Other McCain,
   here from The Daily Dish,
   and here, here, here, here, here, etc.
4. WP:BLP is the guidelines for "Biographies of living persons", and Sparkman is not a living person. Also, Sparkman is not really notable except for his death, so the article is really about the "Death of Bill Sparkman", the event, instead of "Bill Sparkman", the person.

Final thoughts:

• What was Riehl thinking? Riehl probably didn't try to solve this mystery, though he may believe his bizarre Sparkman theory is a possibility. I think he actually made this post as a counter to the liberal theorizing about right-wing anti-government incitement,[9] which he probably sees as equally absurd.
• Do I believe Riehl? Riehl is outrageously insulting in suggesting this as one of the few scenarios that fit the facts of this case. Despite reports that Sparkman was an exemplary and selfless man, this kind of speculation is always appalling in the absence of any supporting evidence or even a suggestion. Riehl lacks credibility, even though he touts that a real-live "trained investigator" complimented his pursuit of another possible solution.[10] To quote pandagon,

  Dan Riehl’s theory that the murdered worker was a child predator … is based on two ironclad pieces of evidence:
  1.) What if he was?
  2.) Wouldn’t it be irresponsible not to theorize? [11]

• Can the paragraph be restored or fixed? I still think there's room for mention of this event in this article. Isn't it fairly obvious that it's a baseless scenario? Would it help if there was a quote from a serious reaction to Riehl's post to give it some balance? ——Rich jj (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By repeating these bizarre speculations we lend credence to them. And although WP:BLP doesn't, strictly speaking, apply (he is not living) I think we should avoid pointlessly trashing the memories of the recently dead. So unless it gets more serious attention from mainstream media, I think we should pass. PS: I left a pointer to this discussion at WP:BLP/N. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree Sparkman didn't deserve Riehl's treatment. But in my defense, whether or not it is trashing Sparkman to cover Riehl's notorious post, I wasn't acting "pointlessly", as I tried to explain above. Doesn't Wikipedia allow discussion of meritless and defamatory claims made by public figures that generate public attention, even if it's all negative attention? Still, I can respect that Riehl may not qualify as a public figure and his post should first have coverage from a major news outlet. ——Rich jj (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing I would like to point out is that the protections of BLP policy do extend to articles that are not biographies, as well as to living persons who are not the subject of the article, but are the subject of the claim in question. So Sarah Palin, for instance, is protected from libel under BLP policy not only on the Sarah Palin article, but also on the Political positions of Sarah Palin article. Unfortunately, the protections afforded under BLP policy do not apply to dead people, even the recently deceased. For this reason, BLP protections do not apply to Bill Sparkman, as he is not a living person. But then again, just because we can doesn't mean we should, and all other policies, such as WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutrality, as well as WP:Reliable sources, still apply. Whether or not it is codified in policy, situations such as this one call on us as people of moral fiber to make editorial decisions that reflect sensitivity to the deceased. Allow me to stress that the latter is only my opinion, not policy. And I'm not saying we shouldn't mention Riehl's rantings at all, but that we should be extremely cautious about how we do so, that we adhere to WP:UNDUE and present Riehl's claims as nothing more than what they are, one person's unfounded opinion. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken. Should I reintroduce Riehl to the article it would be (1) without undue weight for his minority view, (2) with prudent sensitivity, (3) clearly presenting his position as baseless speculation. It may help #3 if I don't cite Riehl's infamous posting, and instead use a response from someplace more notable (like Daily Kos?), thereby employing a secondary source, which is preferable. ——Rich jj (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds to me like a very commendable approach. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this proposed content belongs in this article. It is not really about Bill Sparkman; these claims have not been taken seriously by any reliable sources. It is about Dan Riehl - all the sources that discuss it are really doing so to criticise him. And Riehl, as far as I can tell, isn't sufficiently notable for an article (where such content would belong). If these comments had come from someone notable, they would be worth mentioning, but as they didn't they're not. Robofish (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I agree that this really says more about Riehl than Sparkman, and Riehl isn't a major player in the conservative blogosphere. In my opinion, Sparkman's death was notable because of (1) its attention-grabbing details, (2) early irresponsible/politically-charged media reactions, and (3) the investigation's enduring lack of answers. If Riehl were notable he would be in #2, but instead he showed that many bloggers disapproved of going too far. At this point I don't think I'll re-add his theory. Rich jj (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"fed"

I wonder whether there is a better term for "fed" than "word." It is not an abbreviation; but a shortened version, presumbly, of "federal." There must be a term for that, although perhaps "fed" can be a slang word? Also, the term is capitalized on this article, but lower-cased in the 2010 Census article. Not to be too precise, but does anyone know which is correct (on the body)? Thanks, RadioBroadcast (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Few details have been divulged by officials, despite national attention. Most breaking reports came from the Associated Press (AP) and they say "fed" (spelled in lower-case) and call it a "word". Their follow-up articles repeat this over and over, as well as saying it was "scrawled" on him. This is circulated through the AP wire to other news outlets. Because of Kentucky State Police (KSP) criticism of misreported details, the AP has carefully not played around with their wording. The capitalization wasn't criticized but it's not confirmed either. It could have been "FED" for all we know.

I think most people assume "fed" abbreviates "federal". I also think it's clearest to call it a "word", although maybe we could say, "the letters spelling 'fed' were written on his chest." That still sounds like a "word" to me. But I do agree that we should change the capitalization to "fed", to agree with the AP reports. ——Rich jj (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Long" investigation

The investigation lasted less than 2 months -- is it really fair to characterize it as "long"? 69.76.211.32 (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. "Long" is subjective and I believe it reflects the feeling at the time when investigators/authorities were withholding all findings and making minimal comments amidst a media frenzy. Several weeks of that seems like an eternity. I'll go ahead and make the change, though I believe the investigation lasted for over 2 months (September 12 – November 23). ——Rich jj (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)